REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4714 OF 2006

State of Haryana and others ...Appellants

Versus

Hem Lata Gupta and others ...Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4715 OF 2006

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4716 OF 2006

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4717 OF 2006

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4719 OF 2006

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4720 OF 2006

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4721 OF 2006

J U D G M E N T

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the orders of the Punjab and Haryana

High Court whereby the alleged denial of advance increments to the writ

petitioners (respondents herein) has been declared illegal and the appellants

have been directed to grant them increments in terms of the instructions issued

by the Government of Punjab vide Memo No. 6462-ED-II(2)60/32640 dated

1.9.1960 and the Government of Haryana vide letter No.152-Edu-II-69/540

dated 5.1.1968.

2. The respondents joined service as teachers in different categories i.e.,

Lecturers, Masters/Mistresses, Language Teachers and Physical Training

Instructors either in the undivided State of Punjab or the newly formed State of

Haryana, which came into being with effect from 1.11.1966. Some of the

respondents possessed post-graduate qualifications at the time of entry in the

service while others claim to have acquired such qualifications after joining the

service. Smt. Hem Lata Gupta and others filed Writ Petition No. 18638/1997 for

issue of a mandamus to the concerned authorities of the Government of

Haryana to give them benefit of 2/3 advance increments from the date of

acquiring post-graduate qualifications in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued

by the Government of Punjab. The same was disposed of by the High Court with

a direction that representation dated 1.10.1997 submitted by the writ-petitioners

be decided by the competent authority by passing a reasoned order. In

compliance of the Court’s directive, the Director of Secondary Education,

Haryana (for short, `the Director’), passed order dated 30.7.1998 whereby he

rejected the claim of the respondents on the ground that after fixation of their

pay in the revised pay scales in terms of the policy contained in letter dated

5.1.1968 of the Government of Haryana, the teachers are not entitled to advance

2

increments in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government of

Punjab. The Director also observed that the instructions issued by the

Government of Punjab were applicable only to the Masters working in the grade

of Rs.110/250 and were not applicable to other teachers like Junior Basic

Teachers, Language Teachers, Art and Craft Teachers, Physical Training

Instructors, Headmasters and Lecturers and, therefore, they cannot claim

advance increments in terms of those instructions. For the sake of reference,

the relevant portions of order dated 30.7.1998 are extracted below:-

I. “That the petitioners were the members of Punjab

Educational Service Class-III (School Cadre) Rules, 1955 and

their conditions of service were governed by the provisions

of the said rules. The pay has been defined in para 10 of

the said rules as under:

10.Pay: Members of the service will be entitled to such

scale of pay as may be authorized by the Govt. from time to

time.

This rule clearly contemplates that members of the service

like the petitioners will be entitled to such scale of pay as

authorized by Govt. from time to time, meaning thereby, as

soon as the pay scales of the employees are revised, the

present pay scale attached with the post will be of no

consequence.

II.That as per rule 10 of the said service rules the petitioners

are entitled to such scales of pay as authorized by the govt.

from time to time. In Appendix A of the said rules the pay

scales of Rs.110/250 with a higher start of 2/5 advance

increments on acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualifications which

was enforced at the time of framing of the said service rules

was only provided for the post of Masters/Mistresses and not

to other categories of teachers. The said scale of pay

remained operative upto 30.11.1967 because after formation

of the State of Haryana, the State Govt. vide letter dated

5.1.1968 had further revised the pay scale of the

3

Masters/Mistresses from Rs.110/250 to 220/400 w.e.f.

1.12.1967. and by virtue of the letter dated 5.1.1968 the

earlier circulars regarding revision of pay scales issued by

the either Governments stood automatically superseded.

Meaning thereby Masters/Mistresses who were earlier made

eligible for the grant of benefit of advance increments in

terms of the pay scales shown in Appendix A of the service

rules 1955 and further supplemented as per joint Punjab

Govt. letter No. 6382-Edu.III (2) 60/32640 dated 1.9.1960

become disentitled to the benefit of advance increments on

acquiring Post Graduation qualifications after having been

given revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.12.1967. In other words

such Masters/Mistresses who got the Post Graduation

qualification on or after 1.12.1967 and were appointed in the

service or after 1.12.1967 are not eligible to get the benefit

of higher start of 2/3 increments as such provisions did not

exist in the Govt. letter dated 5.1.68 under which the grades

were revised w.e.f. 1.12.1967. By virtue of the statutory

sanction in rule 10 of the Punjab Educational Service Class-

III (School Cadre) Rules, 1955 vide which the pay scales

were subject to variation from time to time, the petitioners

are not entitled to the advance increments as after revision

of pay scales w.e.f. 1.12.1967 the pay scales shown in

Appendix A in the said service rules 1965 and letter dated

23.7.57 did not remain in existence as the petitioners have

either been appointed after 1.12.67 or acquired the

M.A./M.Sc. qualifications after 1.12.67.

III.xxx xxx xxx

IV.That after 1.12.67, the State Govt. had further revised the

scales of pay of its employees including the petitioners w.e.f.

1.4.79 and 1.1.86 by framing rules under the proviso of

Article 309 of the Constitution of India and these rules are

known as Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987

published on 29.2.80 and 29.4.87 respectively. At this time

also as provision of grant of 2/3 advance increments on

acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification existed and as such the

petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of advance

increments on acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification existed

and as such the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of

advance increments on acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification.

V. xxx xxx xxx

4

VI.That further mere look of the provisions of Appendix-A of

the said rules 1955 and later on supplemented vide Punjab

Govt., letter No.6482-Edu.III (2) 60/32640 dated 1.9.1960

would show that the benefit of 2/3 advance increments was

only given to the category of Masters/Mistresses working in

the grade of Rs.110/250 and not to the other categories of

teachers like J.B.T., Maths, Sanskrit, Punjabi, Art & Craft

teachers, P.T.I., Headmasters and Lecturers. Thus those

petitioners who are working/appointed against the said posts

are also not entitled to 2/3 advance increments on acquiring

of M.A./M.Sc. qualification.”

3. Respondents Smt. Hem Lata Gupta and 11 others challenged the

aforementioned order in C.W.P. No. 17842/1998. They pleaded that in view of

the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab vide Memo dated 1.9.1960,

they are entitled to advance increments as of right and fixation of their pay in

the revised pay scales with effect from 1.12.1967 cannot be made a ground for

denying them the benefit of advance increments. In the counter affidavit filed

before the High Court, the appellants pleaded that the respondents are not

entitled to advance increments in terms of the instructions issued by the

Government of Punjab because the same will be deemed to have been

superseded with the revision of pay scales of various categories of teachers with

effect from 1.12.1967.

4. By an order dated 8.1.2001, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed

the writ petition and issued direction, which is under challenge in Civil Appeal No.

4714/2006. The Division Bench relied upon the judgments of this Court in

5

Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 697, State of Haryana

v. Harbans Lal (2002) 10 SCC 125 and held that even though pay scales of the

teaches were revised by the Government of Haryana, the earlier instructions

were not superseded and, as such, the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefit

of advance increments in terms of the policy decision contained in Government

of Punjab Memo dated 1.9.1960. The Division Bench also noted that teachers

employed in Kurukshetra District have been allowed personal pay equal to one

increment in their respective grades for a period of 5 years and held that other

teachers cannot be discriminated. The writ petitions filed by other respondents

were likewise allowed and similar direction was issued for grant of advance

increments to them.

5. Shri P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants

argued that as a result of revision of pay scales of the teachers with effect from

1.12.1967, the policy contained in Government of Punjab Memo dated 1.9.1960

will be deemed to have been superseded and the High Court committed serious

error by relying upon the said memo for issuing a mandamus for grant of

advance increments to the respondents. Shri Misra referred to letters dated

5.1.1968, 20.6.1977

and 20.12.1982 issued by the Government of Haryana and

argued that once the State Government took a conscious decision to revise the

pay scales of teachers and grant them increments on fulfillment of the specified

conditions, the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab could not be

6

invoked by the respondents for claiming benefit of advance increments. On the

other hand, Shri Balbir Singh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents argued

that on acquiring higher qualifications, his clients became entitled to advance

increments in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government of

Punjab and they cannot be deprived of that right simply because the

Government of Haryana decided to revise the pay scales with effect from

1.12.1967.

6. We have considered the respective submissions. In exercise of the

powers conferred upon him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of

India, the Governor of Punjab framed the Punjab Educational Service Class-III

(School Cadre) Rules, 1955 (for short, “the 1955 Rules”) for regulating

recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Punjab

Educational State Service, Class III, School Cadre. The same were notified on

30.5.1957. Rule 10 of the 1955 Rules lays down that members of the service will

be entitled to such scale of pay as may be authorized by the Government from

time to time. The scales of pay of different categories of teachers, which were in

force at the relevant time, were specified in Appendix `A’ annexed to the 1955

Rules. For the post of Headmasters, the prescribed pay scale was Rs.250-10-

350. For the post of Masters, the prescribed pay scale was Rs.250-10-300. For

certain other categories of teachers, the pay scale was Rs.110-8-190/10-250 with

a start of Rs.126 to those having the qualification of M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. with third

7

division and Rs.150 to those possessing qualification of M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. with

second or first division. After two months, the Government of Punjab issued

circular dated 23.7.1957 for revision of the scales of pay of certain posts

including those of teachers. This was followed by Memo dated 1.9.1960 vide

which the State Government sanctioned grant of advance increments to the

Masters on their acquiring postgraduate qualifications. The relevant portions of

Memo dated 1.9.1960 which constitutes the foundation of the respondents’ claim

for advance increments are reproduced below:

“Sanction of the Government of Punjab is accorded to the grant of

advance increments to the Masters working in the Punjab

Education Department, who improve/have improved their

educational qualifications in the manner detailed below:-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Category of Nature of improved Extent of advance

personnel qualifications increments

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Masters (110-8-190/10-250) 2 increments

MA/MSc./M.Ed.

(3

rd

Division)

MA/M.Sc./M.Ed. 3 increments

(1

st

/2

nd

Division)

2. The advantage will be enjoyed only once and not for doing

any subsequent M.A. It will not be available to those who

were given higher start of entry for being MA/M.Sc./M.Ed.

3. These orders will take effect from the date of issue.

The original date of increments shall remain unchanged and the

persons concerned should be allowed to retain their old dates of

increments.”

8

7. Though not directly relevant to the issue raised in these appeals, we may

make a mention of circular letter No. 961-4GS-62/5593 dated 16.2.1962 (this

circular finds a mention in letter dated 20.12.1982 issued by the Government of

Haryana), vide which the Government of Punjab decided to give advance

increments/rapid promotions to officers going abroad to improve their

qualifications. This was done with a view to ensure that the officers who

improve their qualifications in foreign countries continue to serve the State.

8. The question of revision of pay scales of the teachers employed under the

Government of Haryana was considered by the Education Commission which is

also known as Kothari Commission. The recommendations made by that

Commission were accepted by the President of India and were implemented by

the State Government with effect from 1.12.1967. For this purpose, instructions

were issued vide letter No. 152-Edu-II-69/540 dated 5.1.1968, the relevant

paragraphs whereof are reproduced below:

I am directed to say that the matter concerning the revision

of scales of pay of teaching personnel working in Govt. Schools in

Haryana has been engaging the attention of Govt. for sometime

past. After careful consideration, the President of India is pleased

to accept the recommendations of the Education Commission

popularly known “KOTHARI COMMISSION” and revise the scale of

pay of Govt. teachers w.e.f. Ist December 1967 in the following

manner:-

Sr.No. Category of teachers Revised grade

1. J.B.T./J.S.T./J.A.V. & V i) Rs.125-5-

150/5-250

9

Teacher, Drawing Master, (for 85% of the

Tailoring Mistresses, Art cadre)

& Craft teachers, Domestic ii) Rs.250-10-

Mistresses & Shastries 300

(for 15% of the

Cadre)

N.B.The untrained Teachers with Higher Secondary Matriculation

qualifications will draw the starting of Rs.100/- mensum and they

will be integrated in the regular pay of scales only after they obtain

necessary profession qualification.

2. Masters/Mistresses i) Rs.220-8-

(Trained Graduates) 300-10-400

(for 85% of the

cadre)

ii) Rs.400-20-

500

(for 15% of the

cadre)

N.B. I) The 1

st

& 2

nd

class graduates will be entitled to

draw one advance increment in addition.

ii)The Untrained graduates will be allowed the starting

salary of Rs.200/- per mensum and will be entitled for

the regular scales of pay only after attaining the

prescribed professional training.

3. Lecturers (Post Graduates) i) Rs.300-25-

450-25-600

(For Ist & 2

nd

class M.A.’s and

M.Ed)

ii) Rs.250-25-

450/25-550

(For 3

rd

class

M.A.’s and

M.Sc’s)

N.B.The Lecturers will be given one advance increment as

soon as they attain professional training.

1

xxx xxx xxx”

9. After revision of the pay scales of various categories of teachers, the

Government of Haryana issued instructions vide letters dated 26.7.1972,

26.11.1974 and 17.7.1975 for grant of monetary benefits in the form of personal

pay to those Government servants who improved their qualifications by

undertaking further studies within the country and abroad. In 1977, all the

existing instructions were superseded and fresh instructions were issued on the

subject vide letter No. 4718-2GS-II-77/17173 dated 20.6.1977, the relevant

portions of which are reproduced below:

“Subject:Grant of personal pay to Govt. servants who improve

their qualifications by further study within the country and abroad.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to the instructions contained in this

Department’s letter No. 4857-GSII-72/28344 dated 26.9.1972,

letter No. 6452-2GSII-74/28173 dated 26.11.1974 and letter No.

434-2GS-II 75/21469 dated 17.7.1975 on the subject noted above

and to say that the Government has further considered the matter

and in supersession of the aforesaid instructions, taken the

following decisions:-

1. Personal pay shall be granted to all employees, who improve

their qualifications after joining Govt. service, if the qualifications so

acquired from a recognized University is/are higher than the

minimum qualifications prescribed for the post on which they were

recruited at the time of entry into Govt. Service, in accordance with

the scales and conditions laid down in the succeeding

paragraphs/sub-paragraphs:-

(i)Personal pay admissible for acquiring each of the following

qualifications shall be equal to the amount of increment(s)

mentioned against each qualifications:-

1

(a) Diploma of at least one year duration One increment

(b) Law degree or post graduate Two increments

(c) Doctorate or Post Doctorate Four increments

qualification

Provided that the maximum benefit will not exceed the equivalent

of four increments.

(ii)Govt. employees who have acquired the aforesaid

qualifications after 26.9.1972 (i.e. whose result as declared on or

after the said date) shall be eligible for the benefit of personal pay

with effect from the date of declaration of the result of the

examination concerned and those who had improved their

educational qualifications before 26.9.1972 i.e. whose result was

declared before the said date shall be eligible for the benefit of

personal pay with effect from the date of issue of these

instructions. In either of the two type of cases, thereto of

increment for the purpose of calculating the amount of personal

pay shall be taken to be the which was last drawn prior to the date

of eligibility.

(iii)No benefit shall not be given for such of these qualifications

as had already been acquired by the Govt. employee before joining

Govt. service.”

10.The decisions contained in letter dated 20.6.1977 and other related

communications were withdrawn by the State Government vide letter dated

20.12.1982, which reads thus:

“No.14/38/82-2GS-II

From

The Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana.

To

1. All Heads of Departments, the Commissioners,

Ambala and Hissar Divisions, all Deputy

1

Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) in

Haryana

2. The Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

Dated, Chandigarh, the 20

th

December, 1982

Subject: Grant of personal pay to Government servants who

improve their qualifications by further study within

the country and abroad.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to the instruction contained in Punjab

Government No.961-4GS-62/5593, dated the 16

th

February, 1962,

Haryana Government letter No.4718-2GS-II-77/17173, dated the

20

th

June, 1977, letter No.14/3/78-GS-II dated 26.7.78 and letter

No. of even number dated the 23

rd

October, 1978 and letter

No.14/18/78-GS-II, dated the 16

th

July, 1979, on the subject noted

above and to say that the matter concerning grant of advance

increments as personal pay to Government employees who improve

their academic qualifications while in service has been under the

consideration of the Government for some time. It has now been

decided to discontinue the practice of giving advance increments to

Government employees for acquiring higher qualifications and all

the instructions issued on the subject as referred to above should

be treated as withdrawn with immediate effect.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

Joint Secretary General Admn.

For Chief Secretary to Government Haryana”

11.Having noticed the factual matrix of the case and various instructions

issued by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana, we shall now consider

whether the direction given by the High Court for grant of advance increments to

1

the respondents from the date of acquiring postgraduate qualifications is legally

correct and justified.

12.A reading of rule 10 of the 1955 Rules and Appendix-A appended thereto

shows that the pay scales prescribed for different categories of teachers prior to

30.5.1957 were made part of the Rules. After two years, the Government of

Punjab issued instructions vide letter dated 23.7.1957 for grant of higher scales

of pay to the teachers from the date of acquiring higher qualifications. By Memo

dated 1.9.1960, sanction was accorded for grant of 2/3 advance increments to

the Masters from the date of improving their educational qualifications.

However, it was made clear that the advantage of advance increments will not

be available to those who were given higher start on account of possessing the

postgraduate qualifications. This stipulation was incorporated in Memo dated

1.9.1960 because some of the teachers who possessed postgraduate

qualifications were already given the benefit of additional increments by being

allowed higher start in the prescribed pay scale. These instructions could be

treated as having been issued by the Government of Punjab under rule 10 of the

1955 Rules. The teachers employed under the Government of Haryana got

benefit of the policy decisions contained in letter dated 23.7.1957 and Memo

dated 1.9.1960 till their pay scales were revised vide letter dated 5.1.1968.

1

13.The argument of the respondents, which found favour with the High Court

that revision of the pay scales of teachers with effect from 1.12.1967 did not

result in automatic supersession of the existing policy decisions sounds attractive

in the first blush, but, on a deeper consideration, we are convinced that the said

argument is fallacious and should have been rejected by the High Court . All the

financial benefits including increments admissible to the teachers in terms of

extant policy decisions must have been taken into consideration by Kothari

Commission while recommending grant of revised pay scales. If this was not

so, there could be no warrant for separately giving one advance increment to

first and second class graduate Masters/Mistresses for whom revised pay scales

of Rs.220-8-300-10-400 (for 85% of the cadre) and Rs.400-20-500 (for 15% of

the cadre) were prescribed. Similarly, there was no justification to give one

advance increment to the Lecturers on their attaining professional training.

Equally, there was no occasion for the State Government to give additional

benefit by way of increments in the form of personal pay to the employees on

improving qualifications after joining Govt. service. This being the position, we

are convinced that the High Court was not right in holding that the decision

taken by the President of India to accept the recommendations of Kothari

Commission for revision of the pay scales of Government teachers and grant of

revised pay scales to them with effect from 1.12.1967 did not have the effect of

superseding the policy contained in Memo dated 1.9.1960.

1

14.In our view, the teachers employed under the Government of Haryana

could claim benefit of the higher pay scales, advance increments etc. in terms of

the policy decisions taken by the Government of undivided Punjab and

instructions issued by it only till the revision of their pay scales, which were made

effective from 1.12.1967 and not thereafter.

15.At this stage, we may usefully notice some of the judgments. In State of

Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia (1975) 4 SCC 740, this Court was called upon

to consider whether teachers were entitled to higher pay scales in terms of the

policy contained in letter dated 23.7.1957. On behalf of the State of Punjab, it

was argued that the policy decision taken by the Government was not intended

to give benefit of higher scales of pay to all the teachers who acquired higher

qualifications and before claiming higher post, the concerned teachers were

required to be selected by the Board. While rejecting the argument, this court

held as under:

“The High Court said that the contention of the State that the

teachers could not be considered for promotion unless they

satisfied the condition of subject combination namely, that if they

were ordinary graduates with training qualifications, they must

have studied two out of the four subjects, namely. History,

Geography, Economics and Political Science is not supported by the

letter dated November 7, 1958. The High Court rightly said that the

letter does not speak of any limitation of subject combination for

promotion.

Some of the teachers were from time to time promoted to the

posts of masters but never continuously beyond a period of six

1

months. After completion of six months, there was a break to avoid

continuity in service for the posts of masters beyond six months.

The State contended that the teachers could not be considered for

promotion unless the Board were satisfied that the teachers if

ordinary graduates with training qualifications must have also

studied two out of four subjects of History, Geography, Economics

and Political Science. The teachers on the other hand contended

that once the State Government had taken a decision as embodied

in the letter dated November 7, 1958, the policy of not allowing the

teachers to continue beyond six months on temporary basis was

nullifying the letter and spirit of the decision of the letter dated

November 7, 1958. The teachers also contended that the

promotion of teachers to masters is completely independent of any

consideration like the combination of subjects. The High Court

rightly held that letter dated November 7, 1958 was subject only to

two limitations. One was that teachers could not claim more than

one-fourth of the vacancies of the posts of masters and the other

was that the claim by way of promotion would be considered by

the appointing authority on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The

High Court rightly held that the letter dated November 7, 1958 was

not subject to the condition of subjects combination being fulfilled.

There are three categories of teachers — Science Masters,

Mathematics Masters and Social Studies Masters. No condition of

combination of subjects can be read into the letter of November 7,

1958.”

16.In Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana (1987) 3 SCC 113, this Court

recognized the entitlement of the teachers to get higher scales of pay from the

date of acquiring higher qualifications in terms of the policy contained in letter

dated 23.7.1957 issued by the Government of Punjab. The plea of the State

Government that those teachers who acquired B.T. or B. Ed. after 1.12.1967 i.e.

the date on which the 1968 order came into force, and before 5.9.1979, would

be entitled to higher grade only with effect from 5.9.1979 and those who

acquired higher qualification after 5.9.1979 would not be entitled to the higher

1

grade was negatived only on the ground that 1968 order had not been brought

to the notice of the Court in State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia (supra).

This is evident from the following portion of paragraph 2 of the judgment:

According to the judgment of the High Court under appeal, the

1968 order did away with the principle of the 1957 order that

teachers acquired BT or BEd qualification should get the higher

grade and that a concession was shown in 1979 enabling the

teachers who acquired the BT or BEd qualification between 1968

and 1979 to get the higher scale from 1979. In our opinion this is

plainly to ignore all the events that took place between 1957 and

1980. The principle that pay should be linked to qualification was

accepted by the Punjab Government in 1957 and when Kirpal Singh

Bhatia case

1

was argued in the High Court and in the Supreme

Court there was not the slightest whisper that the principle had

been departed from in the 1968 order. In fact the 1968 order

expressly stated that the Government had accepted the Kothari

Commission’s report in regard to scales of pay and as already

pointed out by us the main feature of the Kothari Commission’s

report in regard to pay was the linking of pay to qualification. That

was apparently the reason why no such argument was advanced in

Kirpal Singh Bhatia case. Even subsequently when several writ

petitions were disposed of by the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana and when the Government issued consequential orders, it

was never suggested that the 1968 order was a retraction from the

principle of qualification linked pay. The 1968 order must be read in

the light of the 1957 order and the report of the Kothari

Commission which was accepted. If so read there can be no doubt

that the Government never intended to retract from the principle

that teachers acquiring the BT or BEd would be entitled to the

higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring

that qualification.

17.With respect, we find it difficult to appreciate as to how the so-called

failure of the Government to bring the 1968 order to the notice of this Court in

Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case was relevant for deciding the issue raised in

Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana (supra). The facts of Kirpal Singh

1

Bhatia’s case were that the respondents before this Court were employed as

teachers in the former State of PEPSU. After merger of the State of PEPSU with

the State of Punjab, the respondents claimed the revised scale of pay from the

date of acquiring the degrees of B.T. or its equivalent in terms of the policy

contained in letter dated 23.7.1957. They also claimed promotion to the post of

Master. The High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents. The

appeals preferred by the State were dismissed by this Court. Since letter dated

5.1.1968 issued by the Government of Haryana for giving effect to the decision

taken by the President of India to accept the recommendations made by Kothari

Commission for revision of the pay scales of the Government teachers had no

bearing whatsoever on the claim of Kirpal Singh Bhatia and others, there was no

occasion for the Government of Punjab to produce that letter before the High

Court and/or this Court. We are sure, if the contents of letter dated 5.1.1968 are

read in a correct perspective, interpretation thereof in Chaman Lal’s case

cannot be treated as correct. As per the recommendations of Kothari

Commission, the revision of pay scales was linked with qualifications. This has

been noted by the Court in Chaman Lal’s case and yet the so-called omission

on the Government’s part to produce letter dated 5.1.1968 before this Court in

Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case was made a ground for holding that

notwithstanding revision of the pay scales of the teachers employed under the

Government of Haryana, they would continue to get the benefit of the policy

contained in letter dated 23.7.1957.

1

18.With a view to overcome the difficulties created by the judgment in

Chaman Lal’s case, the Government of Haryana issued instructions dated

9.3.1990 making explicit what was implicit in the instructions issued vide letter

dated 5.1.1968 for implementation of the recommendations made by Kothari

Commission. In Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 697,

this Court considered the question whether the teachers employed under the

Government of Haryana are entitled to higher grade admissible to Masters with

effect from the dates of their acquiring B.T./B.Ed. qualifications. The concerned

teachers relied upon the policy contained in letter dated 23.7.1957 of the

Government of Punjab, judgment in Chaman Lal’s case and pleaded that the

benefit of higher grade cannot be denied by the Government of Haryana despite

the policy contained in Finance Department letter dated 9.3.1990. On behalf of

the respondents, it was argued that the policy instructions contained in letter

dated 23.7.1957 were superseded by the subsequent instructions issued on

9.3.1990. The Court extracted the observations made in Chaman Lal’s case,

referred to the policy contained in letter dated 9.3.1990 and held that once the

Government altered the earlier policy, the judgment in Chaman Lal’s case will

have no application and the appellants who had not acquired B.T./B.Ed.

qualification before 9.3.1990 cannot claim the benefit of higher grade of pay

automatically.

2

19.In State of Haryana v. Kamal Singh Saharawat (1999) 8 SCC 44, a

somewhat similar issue was considered. The High Court had accepted the claim

of the teachers that they are entitled to higher scales of pay according to

qualifications irrespective of the post held by them. This Court noted that the

recommendations made by Kothari Commission were accepted by the State

Government and the pay scales of the teachers were revised vide letter dated

5.1.1968. The Court also took cognizance of the policy contained in letter dated

9.3.1990 issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Haryana and

rejected the claim of the respondent-teachers that they are entitled to higher

scales of pay applicable to the post of Lecturers on their acquiring post-graduate

qualifications. Paragraphs 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the judgment which contain

detailed consideration of the issue read as under:

19. With effect from 1-11-1966, the State of Haryana came into

existence. Earlier there was an Education Commission popularly

known as “the Kothari Commission” at the national level which

made recommendations regarding further revision of pay scales of

Teachers who were divided into several categories. The basis for

classifications adopted by the Commission was academic

qualifications. The recommendations of the Kothari Commission

were mostly accepted by the State of Haryana. The pay scales of

Teachers were revised and the decision of the Government was

contained in Letter No. 152-Edu.II-68/540 dated 5-1-1968 from the

Secretary to Government of Haryana, Education Department,

Chandigarh to the Director of Public Instruction, Haryana,

Chandigarh. The letter also fixed the percentage in which various

incumbents were to be divided for purposes of higher scale or the

lower scale as mentioned in the letter. Column II referred to the

category of teachers and Column III set out the revised grades. Sl.

No. 1 pertains to JBT/JST/JAV etc. Sl. No. 2 pertains to

Masters/Mistresses (trained graduates). Sl. No. 3 relates to

Lecturers (postgraduates). The NB reads: “The Lecturers will be

2

given one advance increment as soon as they attain professional

training.” Sl. No. 4 refers to Headmasters/Headmistresses etc.

There is nothing in the said letter to show that the post of

Lecturers was included in Appendix ‘A’ to the Punjab Educational

Service Rules or that it came to be governed by the said rules. The

letter refers merely to revision of scales of pay and does not set out

the method of recruitment or conditions of service. There is nothing

in the letter to show that the categories of Teachers set out at Sl.

No. 1 and Sl. No. 2 were automatically entitled to become Lecturers

or entitled to the scales of pay applicable to the Lecturers.

20. It may be mentioned here that there was an earlier letter

issued by the Punjab Government on 29-7-1967 revising the pay

scales of the teaching personnel of government schools in the State

of Punjab w.e.f. 1-11-1966 after consideration of the

recommendations made by the Kothari Commission. Though the

said letter is not applicable to the Teachers in the present case,

reference has been made to the same and reliance has been placed

on a decision of this Court in which the said letter was considered.

We will advert to that decision later and it is unnecessary for us to

dilate any further on the letter of the Punjab Government dated 29-

7-1967.

22. Insofar as the State of Haryana is concerned, one other letter

has been placed before us by the counsel for the State Government

viz. Letter No. 7/2(I)/90-4 FR-I dated, Chandigarh, 9-3-1990 sent

by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government of

Haryana, Finance Department to the Commissioner & Secretary to

Government of Haryana, Education Department. That letter makes

a reference to the circular letter dated 23-7-1957 issued by the

Punjab Government to which we have already adverted in detail.

The letter also makes reference to the subsequent letter dated 5-1-

1968 which has also been referred to by us earlier. Reference has

been made to subsequent Notification No. GSR-

20/Const./Art/309/89 dated 29-2-1980 by virtue of which the letter

dated 5-1-1968 stood inoperative automatically. It is seen from the

said letter that the Haryana Government had revised the pay scales

further under Notification No. GSR-20/Const./Art/309/87 dated 29-

4-1987 with effect from 1986. Ultimately, the letter clarifies that

the teachers in the Education Department in the State of Haryana

were not entitled to be placed in the higher scales of pay in terms

of para 3 of the Punjab Government letter dated 23-7-1957 or any

subsequent letter or notification issued by the Haryana Government

2

referred to therein which had become inoperative. The last

sentence in para 6 of the letter reads as follows:

“The Masters/Teachers in the Education Department will be

placed in the scales of pay of their respective categories to which

they are appointed against the sanctioned posts and mere

possessing/acquiring of higher qualifications will not entitle them

automatically to claim higher pay scales.”

23. Thus a perusal of the Educational Service Rules which have

been prevailing from 1955 undergoing amendments from time to

time and the subsequent government policy letters and circulars

show that the Teachers are not entitled to higher scales of pay

applicable to the posts of Lecturers automatically on their acquiring

postgraduate qualifications or such qualifications as are prescribed

for the post of Lecturers. We have already pointed out that the

post of Lecturers has throughout been governed by different sets

of rules and never by the Punjab Educational Service Class III

School Cadre Rules, 1955 or the amendments thereto. Hence, the

common question raised in these matters has to be answered in

the negative against the Teachers/Masters/Mistresses some of

whom are respondents in Civil Appeal No. 4304 of 1990 and the

others being petitioners in SLPs and appellants in Civil Appeal No.

2104 of 1998.

20.The Court then considered various judgments rendered by this Court and

the High Court including Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case, Gurpal Tuli v. State of

Punjab 1984 Supp SCC 716, Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers’ Union v.

State of Punjab (1988) 2 SCC 407, Baij Nath v. State of Punjab (1996) 8

SCC 516, Chaman Lal’s case, Wazir Singh’s case, State of Haryana v.

Ravi Bala (1997) 1 SCC 267 and concluded that on acquiring postgraduate

qualification or qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturers, teachers are

not automatically entitled to the scales of pay of the Lecturers without being

appointed as Lecturers in accordance with the rules.

2

21.In our view, the doubts and confusion created due to the judgment in

Chaman Lal’s case on the entitlement of the teachers to automatically get

particular pay scale prescribed for higher post have been clarified by the

judgments in Wazir Singh’s case and Kamal Singh Saharawat’s case and

in view of the latter decisions, the respondents’ claim for grant of advance

increments in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government of

Punjab cannot be accepted.

22.Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while deciding

the writ petitions filed by the respondents, the High Court neither adverted to

the reasons assigned by the Director for rejecting the respondents’ claim for

advance increments nor any fault was found with order dated 30.7.1998. The

High Court also failed to notice that the writ petitions were filed not only by the

Masters/Mistresses, but also by other categories of teachers i.e., Lecturers,

Language Teachers, Physical Training Instructors etc. who could not, by any

stretch of imagination, lay claim for advance increments in terms of Memo dated

1.9.1960 issued by the Government of Punjab which was confined to the Masters

only. Therefore, on this ground also the direction given by the High Court for

grant of advance increments to the respondents cannot be sustained.

23.In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside

and the writ petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court are

2

dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be made a ground

to deny the benefit, if any, admissible to the respondents or any one of them in

terms of the policy contained in letter dated 20.6.1977. Rather, the State

Government and the concerned authorities should suo motu undertake

appropriate exercise for grant of benefit of that policy to the respondents and

other similarly situated persons, pass appropriate orders and pay monetary

benefits to the concerned teachers within six months from the date of

production/receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless to say that such benefit

shall not be admissible to the teachers who may have improved their

qualifications on or after 20.12.1982 i.e., the date on which the policy contained

in letter dated 20.6.1977 was withdrawn.

………………………………J.

(R.V. RAVEENDRAN)

……………………………. .J.

(G.S. SINGHVI)

New Delhi;

Dated: January 05, 2010.

2